The information on this blog about the corruption in America's courts will disgust and frighten you and propel you into a world of racketeering, greed, larceny, malicious prosecution, and outrageous disdain for due process, the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Professional Responsibility Standards, Rules and Statutes. This is the Unified Court System of New York State. You will be a victim unless you speak up and protest. by Betsy Combier

Monday, May 2, 2016

Corrupt Politics May Survive Because the Corrupt Politicians Are Not Acting "Officially"

Preet Bharara will throw Mayor de Blasio in prison along with, soon, former state lawmakers Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos?

Keep hoping. The Supreme Court could make it harder to secure corruption convictions — meaning we’ll have to kick dirty pols out at the ballot box, rather than wait for arrests.

Federal law is clear: A politician can’t take a donor’s money and promise something in return.

Bill de Blasio can’t take money from people who want to ban the horse carriages — and promise to ban the horse carriages in return.

Nor can he take money from people who don’t want to ban helicopter tours — and then protect the tours in return.

So why might the mayor skate when it comes to any pay-for-play shenanigans?

The key is the “in return” part.

The Supreme Court has long prohibited prosecutors from using timing as evidence: Jurors must believe it is just coincidence if a candidate gets a donation one day and does something for the donor the next.

Prosecutors need evidence of an explicit deal, and few politicians are dumb enough to have such a deal.

Now, the Supreme Court could make it even harder for prosecutors to prove a quid pro quo. Under a possible new reading of the law, politicians would be able to make explicit deals with donors — as long as they don’t act “officially.”

The case in question is federal prosecutors’ conviction two years ago of then-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

McDonnell received a prison sentence for taking $177,000 in plane trips, Louis Vuitton and Oscar de la Renta clothes, iPhones, a wedding for his daughter and a Rolex, all from a man, Jonnie Williams, who wanted the governor to promote his diet pill.

The jury was careful — it acquitted the governor on three counts. But jurors could see the obvious: No politician can take that much money and not know he is being bribed.

Still, McDonnell has a great lawyer, Noel Francisco — who convinced the Supreme Court to take the case.

Last Wednesday, the court heard a novel argument: McDonnell can’t be convicted of bribery, because the things he did for Williams were not “official acts.”

That is, when McDonnell asked researchers at the state University of Virginia to promote Williams’ drug supplements, he wasn’t acting as governor. He was just acting as any regular person, exercising free speech.

As Justice Elena Kagan observed of one of the governor’s techniques, “so that’s essentially hosting a party and allowing Mr. Williams to invite some people . . . Why is that an official act?”

Sure. We all have parties in our homes.

Except: The governor has parties in the Governor’s Mansion — not something anyone can do.

And, as Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben noted before the court, the guests from the university weren’t exactly there voluntarily.

The governor appoints the university’s board members. “He sets the budget,” Dreeben noted. “They know that he’s an important guy . . . The governor is taking every step he can” to signal to university folk to support this diet drug.

When you’re the governor, everything you do in public is an official act.

If corruption is only when you take direct action to help a donor, it will be difficult to secure corruption convictions.

A change in the law would affect New York’s recent cases — and chances for future convictions.

Take former state Senate leader Dean Skelos, convicted of bribery in December. US Attorney Bharara’s conviction of Skelos wasn’t mostly based on “official acts,” under the definition the court is considering.

Skelos convinced Long Island officials to help a company that employed his son, in return for that employment. But Skelos had no legal authority over those Long Island officials. Anyone can ask government officials for help.

The same is true with the mayor. Say prosecutors do find evidence of a deal between horse-carriage opponents and de Blasio. Any citizen can propose that the City Council consider a bill to ban horse carriages — just as any citizen can encourage regulators to look favorably upon helicopters.

(Silver’s conviction is more secure. Then again, it took two decades to catch the guy.)

No matter what the Supreme Court rules, we shouldn’t rely on the justice system to govern our politicians.

De Blasio doesn’t have to be found legally corrupt for the voters to think he is corrupt.

As long as he’s out of office, it doesn’t matter if he’s out of prison, too.Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Sunny Shue, died Saturday June 26, 2010. Video that Sunny did on April 9 2010, asking for protection from Judge Joseph Golia. Wednesday...

September 2, 2009 Hearing With Senator John Sampson on Judicial Accountability in New York State

We went to a Hearing with Senator John Sampson on September 24, 2009 on the New York Judicial Syatem. A few people were able to speak, and many others signed up to speak at a later date...that Sampson never scheduled.

First published in print: Monday, January 11, 2010
Here we thought that the first order of business this year for state Senate Democratic leader John Sampson would be to help regain that institution's credibility by passing radical ethics reforms.

The need for them would seem to be brutally obvious, in the wake of the conviction of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno on federal corruption charges and Governor Paterson's calls for requiring state officials members to disclose their outside income. First, though, Mr. Sampson has joined a large Manhattan law firm where one of the founding partners is on the board of the state Trial Lawyers Association.
That's right. Mr. Sampson now works not only for the people of New York, but also for the firm of Belluck & Fox, according to a New York Post report.

His salary in the former position is a matter of public record, of course -- $88,500. His salary in his new job, however, is something Mr. Sampson isn't about to disclose.

Just as New Yorkers need to learn more about legislators' outside interests, Mr. Sampson offers them less.

Imagine, then, what people might think if this is one more year when the Legislature fails to pass ethics laws. Or if it does, only a watered down version of what's need to clean up an institution where criminal indictments and convictions have become too commonplace?

What were Mr. Sampson's priorities, they might wonder -- transparency in government, or shielding from both his own finances and Belluch & Fox's clients?

The same questions might be asked as well of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who holds a position of counsel to another Manhattan law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg. Little is known by the public about that arrangement, too, thanks to the alarmingly inadequate financial disclosure requirements for legislators that Mr. Silver seems to think are entirely adequate. We know he works for that particular firm, one of the largest tort law firms in New York, but we don't know what the nature of his work is, or on whose behalf he does it.

That will become all the more relevant in the event someone else in the Legislature tries to push for rewriting the state's medical malpractice laws or otherwise changing tort laws this session. Two of the most powerful people in state government work for law firms closely associated with the leading opponent of such legislation, namely the Trial Lawyers Association.

In Mr. Silver's case, he rather famously said of his legal work a half-dozen years ago, "I don't think it's a conflict. How many times do you want to hear this?"

In Mr. Sampson's case, the word comes from his office that his outside work won't interfere with his official duties.

Not exactly endorsements of ethics reform, are they?

THE ISSUE:

The state Senate Democratic leader has another job, too, not that he wants to talk about it.

THE STAKES:

When ethics reform is a major issue, how serious is he about stronger financial disclosure requirements?

Electronic Libraries and FOIA Links

Accountability is the Key

Westchester Guardian TV

Loading...

Click picture to view website

Victims-of-Law

Who is a Victim-of-Law?Victims-of-Law are persons who have been subjected to tyrannical or arbitrary rulings or edicts in violation of constitutional and civil rights under the democratic maxim reminiscent of our Republic -- the "Rule of Law"

The victims of unethical and corrupt lawyers, judges and employees of the state and federal judiciary demand accountability from those who abuse the power of office while they remain absolutely immune. The media as well as the legislative and executive branches of government traditionally ignore these abuses. The judicial branch itself hurls insults at the victim claiming they are nothing more than a 'disgruntled litigant' while ignoring substantive allegations.

It is essential to empower the victims of legal abuses. Our strength is in our numbers thus the more people that demand their constitutional and civil rights the quicker they will be attained.

What most people do not comprehend is that judges are immune from civil lawsuits. If a judge unlawfully imprisoned someone or maliciously denied due process in a case that cost a litigant millions of dollars, it doesn't matter. There is no redress for the aggrieved person.

The emotional and physical health problems inherent in these abuses are now coming to light but the judicial branches throughout our country continue to avoid or deliberately ignore what they have helped to create.

This website hopes to publish documented proof of many of the deliberate violations of the 'rule of law, the doctrine upon which our Constitutional Republic is based.

This website hopes to publish documented proof of many of the deliberate violations of the 'rule of law, the doctrine upon which our Constitutional Republic is based.

What is the "Rule of Law"? Equality and the Law

The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled to equal protection before the law.

The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes constitutional law expert John P. Frank, "Under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people."

No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law and democracy are served.

The Supreme CourtThe Framers considered the rule of law essential to the safekeeping of social order and civil liberties. The rule of law holds that if our relationships with each other and with the state are governed by a set of rules, rather than by a group of individuals, we are less likely to fall victim to authoritarian rule. The rule of law calls for both individuals and the government to submit to the law's supremacy. By precluding both the individual and the state from transcending the supreme law of the land, the Framers constructed another protective layer over individual rights and liberties. --Reprinted from U.S. Dept. of State

Judicial Immunity is AbsoluteIn an unprecedented degree of 'abuse of power' judges decreed themselves absolutely immune from civil suit when they are "acting maliciously and corruptly." In 1996 the 104th Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act amending the Civil Rights statute to give further immunities to malicious and corrupt judges.

Sec. 309. Prohibition against awards of costs, including attorney's fees, and injunctive relief against a judicial officer.28 USC 2412 note.>> for Costs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no judicial officer shall be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, in any action brought against such officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.(b) Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights.--Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof "except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction".

(c) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.--Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence: ``, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable''.

Advocate for truth and An End To Judicial Immunity

About Betsy Combier

Reporter, paralegal, advocate,I will investigate, search on the internet and in all data bases for information that will help a person in need of resolution to a problem.I believe in substantive and procedural due process for all individuals, groups and organizations and trademarked the term "e-accountability" to describe the purpose of my work. I am the parent of four daughters.

National Forum on Judicial Accountability Badge

Google+ Badge

Notable Events Outside New York State

Search This Blog

Who is John Libecci?

On Sunday, August 16, 2009, a friend of a friend called me at approximately 2:10PM, a Mr. John Libecci. Mr. Libecci is, I understand, a private investigator who knows a friend of mine socially. I asked whether he could help me find out some information involving my federal court case filed in United States District court on June 8, 2009 involving the Surrogate Court and my mother's Will. After I told him about the property being taken by the court, he told me that the court never takes property without a reason; after I told him that the Will was never probated since I filed the Will (of my mom) on March 17, 1998), Mr. Libecci told me that "obviously the Will was not done right", and said that he worked for the Courts and the Judges. He would not tell me what he did for the Court and the judges, then hung up. If anyone has information about Mr. John Libecci please email me at betsy@parentadvocates.org. You may send me any information anonymously.